US Army to Test Laser Based Mine Clearing Device 290
QueueEhGuy writes "Yahoo News is running a Reuters story indicating that the United States will soon be testing a laser which "will either explode or evaporate the explosives in the device which can be up to 250 yards away.." It's about time, I was starting to think that we'd never blow stuff up with light." New Scientist has another story, complete with nifty graphic. The Zeus homepage has a few pictures and specs.
dumb question (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not as though you can just plug the humvee in on the battlefield...
Re:dumb question (Score:1, Funny)
Re:dumb question (Score:4, Insightful)
Just use a souped up alternator and the engine make a good generator.
-
Re:dumb question (Score:2, Informative)
Re:dumb question (Score:2)
Even a small (1000cc) fuel-injected engine is good for 50kW mechanical output. Match a generator (or more correctly, an alternator, as it would likely be AC powered) and you're good for at least 30-40KW of electrical power.
Re:dumb question (Score:1)
You can't plug a humvee in on the battlefield?
Darn...there goes that idea
Re:dumb question (Score:2, Funny)
Re:dumb question (Score:1)
imagination (Score:4, Funny)
Fire the "Laser"
I want one of these cars... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I want one of these cars... (Score:2)
Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:5, Insightful)
I'ts really too bad that this unit isn't for de-mining during peacetime. There are many countries that are covered with mines from past wars (just think of some eastern European countries and African countries). Too many civilians die each year from old mines. Oh well, this is good news non the less as it will help save lives.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:1)
Now I don't know this to be the case and I would love to here from anyone who has better info. But it seems that money shouldn't be a problem (I think even I could raise money to help stop blowing up little kids).
And you don't have to have a laser to blow up munitions. I would think some heavy machinery could be fit to do the job.
So what is exactly keeping these mines from getting cleaned up?
.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:2, Informative)
Two things. There are a lot of them. A staggering amount of landmines are already in place in many countries. The other problem is that people are still continuing to bury them at an equally staggering rate.
You can try clearing them out, but I'll bet that if you clear one area, not only will someone be following you to replace them, but another field will get filled up while you're doing it.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:3, Interesting)
Another post linked to an anti-mine site that says there are like 80 million landmines in 80 different countries.
Now some one else posted that the U.S. has placed most land mines but I find this difficult to believe.
I would imagine that many of those currently placing mines are those actively involved in conflicts looking for a cheap way to do some damage. Not the U.S. military. (I could be wrong but I doubt it)
So the problem is people wanting to kill others. The antimine people look to me to be avoiding the real issue in favor of blaming the tool.
I've never looked into this too closely so I haven't made up my mind on anything but it looks like once again the problem is people w/bad intentions. Can't ban that.
.
US Landmine placement (Score:2, Insightful)
Of the 80 million mines, I'll guestimate that the US placed em in...
Korea (Still in use on the DMZ)
Vietnam (Many of the "mines" are prbly unexploded munitions)
Honduras
At the most, 2-4 million
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/rpt_9809_d
Angola - That'd be South Africa and Cuba along with Rebels
Eritrea - Somalia
Mozambique - Rebels and the government
Namibia - South Africa and Marxist rebels
Somalia - Somalia during the civil war with Eritrea
Sudan - Civil War, border with Egypt
Afghanistan - Soviets
Cambodia - US, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, rebels
Bosnia - Serbia and the Civil War
Croatia - Serbia, Yugoslavia, Croatia
Nicaragua - The US and the local government
Iraq - Iraq, the Kurds, Iran.
So out of the 53 million estimated, the US might be responsable for a piece of the Cambodia and Afghan problem. The US wasn't big into dumb mines other than Claymore after the Korean War ended, except in Korea due to the problems with fratricide and killing civillians.
Re:US Landmine placement - Korea (Score:3, Informative)
According to people who are working on landmine clean up in Afghanistan, neither the US nor the Taliban planted mines during that conflict. Apparently most of the mines are from the Russian and various tribal conflicts...predating the current war.
There is, however, a really big problem of unexploded ordinance. Things we dropped on the Afghans that haven't exploded yet.
I remember, the other complaint that the US had with the landmine ban (of 199?) was that it required destruction of stockpiles before the US could complete the environmental impact statement. Aparently, some anti tank mines have nasty things like depleted uranium, and you don't want to just blow them up...because of the damage to the environment.
The US has been playing a major role in the landmine ban, but did not sign the treaty. We have a habit of doing things like this.
Re:US Landmine placement - Korea (Score:2)
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:5, Interesting)
The United States does deploy land mines, (a.k.a. Area Denial Weapons) mostly along the South Korea / North Korea border. The USA stands alone among Western countries in not banning the use of the devices. Regardless, land mines can be bought for about six dollars on the open market! (Gotta love those economies of scale)
So the problem is people wanting to kill others. The antimine people look to me to be avoiding the real issue in favor of blaming the tool.
The problem is not people wanting to kill others. The problem is *land mines*, which continue to kill and maim long after the war is over. The world considers this to be acceptable. Part of the problem is that the USA considers this to be acceptable.
We were able to ban the use of poison gas after World War I, and Western nations have not used it since. Poison gas kills indiscriminantly, without regard for civilian or military status, and it is a very unpleasant way to die. Civlized nations decided that even in war, there are rules. The USA, of course, has more chemical and biological weapons than any other country on earth...
Like we did with poison gas, we should ban land mines, and stop using them, and most of all stop producing them.
We can't prevent people from having bad intentions but we can set some boundaries on acceptable behavior. Poison gas was deemed unacceptable. Land mines kill indiscriminantly long after the war is over. They must be banned, and they should be removed from the face of the earth.
I've never looked into this too closely so I haven't made up my mind on anything but it looks like once again the problem is people w/bad intentions. Can't ban that.
Look closely. The problem is not people with bad intentions. It is that these people continue to use a weapon which keeps fighting after the war is over. The combatants have gone home, but the land mines they left behind keep blowing up.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:2, Interesting)
This is what I mean about the people problem.
Part of the problem is that the USA considers this to be acceptable
From what I've read today the U.S. does not find this to be acceptable. In fact they haven't made antipersonnel mines in years and have banned their export. Apparently they are very easy/cheap to manufacture and they continue to be in use because people want to kill other people and this is a very cheap way to do it. Poison gas is not a good comparison as it is not so cheap to produce, store and deploy.
They must be banned, and they should be removed from the face of the earth.
I agree that we would be better off without them but I am not sure that the ban will get the job done. It looks like these are way too easy to manufacture and there is a market. (kind of like narcotics).
I'll keep researching because I'm very interested but from what I've read on the antimine web site that supports the ban- the U.S. has not produced or exported mines in over 6 years- nor do they intend to do so in the future. Getting them to sign the ban seems symbolic at best. I'm familiar w/this kind of thinking as it is what drives the anti-gun lobby. Much more sentimental motivation than reason.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:2)
I also wonder about how many mines the U.S. has stockpiled. Sort of like the Taliban, when they said they would stop the cultivation of poppies for opium. They did, but they kept the warehouses full to the rafters with what would have been a multi-year supply. The U.S. could have enough mines to cover Texas, making a 6-year stop in production meaningless.
Finally, I think the ban treaty also had a clean up clause -- the the U.S. has NO interest in cleaning up the Korean DMZ right now.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:3, Insightful)
Any proof for this offensive assertion??
The USSR had by far the most chemical and bioweapons of any nation, and was producing them into the nineties.
The US, unlike the USSR, did away with it's chemical and biological weapons after it signed the treaty.
Mines are a problem. The US is working on mines which self-degrade.
But the real problem is the countries which ignore civilized rules. Countries like Iraq, which produced large amounts of biological and chemical weapons, and used them in spite of treaties.
Treaties are nice when you are dealing with nice people.
They don't work worth a darn when your opponents are monsters.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:3, Interesting)
I especially noticed the part where Russia and China, the largest exporters of land mines, didn't even make the post. After all, it's all the USA's fault.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to find them first. Most of these minefields are layed out "blanket" style and there are no maps where the mines have been put in. As a result it becomes a task of combing the entire surface of the conflict zone. Including woods, swamps, mountain ranges, etc. It took more then 40 years to clear the ex-WWII minefields in former USSR. Kids were getting themnselves blown up palying in the Belorussian woods as recent as 1980-es
Back to this device. With this device you have to see them to clear them. This is good for exploading UXO and disarming bombs put by nuts of various origin. Basically it is the same market as the current police force UK and israeli made robots, which use a pump action shotgun to detonate the bomb. Unfortunately they often get blasted into bits while doing this as they have to do it from under 20m range. And they are b*** expensive.
So I guess that police forces around the world especially in UK, Middle East, Greece, etc will happlily buy this truck. I do not see it getting any wide military deployment. The reason for this is that it is not very useful on a properly layed minefield where you cannot see the mines. A tank rolling a reinforced plough or the solid fuel propelled one-time use ploughs will be of much better use.
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:4, Interesting)
During wartime, you want to get the field cleared out as fast as possible, often because people are trying to kill you while you're clearing. So there's a balance between speed and thoroughness; after a certain point, the odds of dying from a missed landmine become worse than the odds of getting shot while clearing. I'm sure that's not the only thing, but the point is during wartime you need the field cleared fast, and it's "okay" if you miss a couple.
During peacetime, you can take all the time you need (well, to a point), but it is absolutely essential that you can guarantee you've found every single mine or nobody will use that field or whatever, and you might as well not have demined at all. For example, over at the Canadian military they're apparently working on a device that shines an x-ray beam down into the earth and looks for characteristic reflections from mines. They pass this device very carefully over every square centimetre of a field, and the idea is that this way they don't miss anything. But it takes forever.
I've heard of another technique where they genetically engineer a local weed so that it glows in the dark (or something) in the presence of certain fumes given off by mines. Seed the field with these modified plants, wait a season (so it's obviously not practical for military use), then look for the glowing bits...
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:3, Funny)
Or...just look for the explosions caused when planting the seed
inedible plastic (Score:2)
Very few (if any) organisms are able to eat raw plastic or pure metal {,alloys). They were happy enough to find something that could eat oil slicks.
Once you breach the case, you could get something to eat the explosives inside, but once the case is breached, the chemicals would probably be leached out and/or eaten by bugs, etc ...
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:2)
That solution is a heck of a lot less expensive than a "freaking laser beam." You don't need to be a rocket scientist to use it or maintain it, and you certainly don't need a G-8 level of technological industry to support it.
The only time that using a laser for de-mining becomes cost effective is when you have to have several thousand troops moved through area X yesterday and you need to get rid of the mines now.
Seriously, suggesting a laser for peacetime demining is like saying "A tomohawk cruise missile is really good at knocking down buildings. Why don't engineering firms use them instead of wrecking balls and shaped charges?"
Re:Not for de-mining during peacetime (Score:2)
What kinda sound does it make? (Score:1, Funny)
Kind of cool- (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the real problem w/mines all over the world is a social one as opposed to a technical problem. Too many little wars for territorial control being waged by people w/little regard for the welfare of others.
There's profit in it though so I don't expect it to change.
.
Re:Kind of cool- (Score:2)
The next step in the evolution (Score:2, Interesting)
unlike the Starwars (Regan) lasers -- these are solid state so as long as you have a power source, they can be re-used. with the advances in today's high capacity capacitors (erm), just hook up that laser satellite to a solar panel and let her rip. boost the power a litter and who says you can't burn down airplanes in flight and stuff?
and (unlikely, but) if somebody hacked the satellite network? oh boy... i think i am going to buy some SPF4000 sunscreen.
future warfare is getting gonna get really interesting, really fast.
Its going to be a record.. (Score:1)
plus, in a humvee? "laser beams" belong on the moon
Re:Its going to be a record.. (Score:2)
Heh.
Above ground only (Score:1)
look at the other point (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, we can clear your land mines with our cool laser technology for only $200,000,000. By the way, here's the brochure for our newest offering of grade AAA mines.
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
Hate to disappoint you, but this is probably designed for not having to get out of the armored vehicle and do it the hard way in battlefield conditions. There are more efficient ways for clearing land mines in peace time conditions.
Re:look at the other point (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, many minefields continue to "deny territory" to the people who live there decades after the conflict has ended. The territory is often denied by killing or maiming their curious kids.
Not to worry, though. The mines weren't -- repeat weren't -- intended to hurt anybody.
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
Anti peronnell mines are specfically intended to wound and not kill. a wounded solider is more of a drain on an army than a dead one.
They are meant to deny territory.
Which they also do to civilians, quite often even after the war is over.
Re:look at the other point (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now the US can't sign a treaty to ban land mines because of our involvement in Korea and other countries. The Korean penninsula is so small that an invading army could take south korea in a matter of days. The only thing short of a fully equipped battle ready army that can slow this kind of surprise attack are the land mines that currently occupy the area in the DMZ between the north and south.
Its not pretty but in some cases the only thing we can do is use landmines.
Re:look at the other point (Score:3, Informative)
2. Doctrinally, all minefields are to be covered by observed direct or observed indirect fire. Thus, should the NK start infiltrating the minefields, a few rounds of belt-fed 7.62mm or 155mm should be an adequate deterrence.
And finally, even the venerable claymore can still be employed with its clicker; only the tripwire has to be set aside.
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
Funny, I was just thinking that politicians' signatures on a piece of paper whose words are true for about as long as the ink dries are all good and neat, but how about we actually build something that gets rid of land mines?
Re:look at the other point (Score:4, Insightful)
And how about we actually stop building mines? Not exactly a chicken and egg problem, is it?
Re:look at the other point (Score:5, Insightful)
I tried not to turn this into a gun control thread, honest. But you've forced my hand.
Let's start with the words-on-paper about guns in Washington, DC, New York City, NY, and Los Angeles, CA. These cities had a problem with their citizens - they liked to shoot guns at one another. (Well, usually only one side was shooting, and nobody was shooting back.) So we put words on paper that say "You can't have guns, and especially not in these cities".
Words on pieces of paper about land mines will probably be every bit as effective at convincing the leaders of Angola, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Mozambique, Bosnia, and Iraq to stop killing people with land mines.
Perhaps you're right - and shortly after their success in convincing great humanitarians like Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein to stop using land mines, the UN passes a resolution that says people blowing themselves up at bus stops and discotheques is Not A Nice Thing Either. Yasser Arafat and the rest of his organization will all stand around a campfire singing "Kumbayah" as doves fly out of their asses.
But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Stop trolling, look at the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact: The vast majority of people hurt by landmines are non-combatants.
In most cases, these innocent civilians are maimed or killed long after the fighting has stopped.
Fact: Landmines are the only battlefield munition that is incapable of distinguishing between friend, foe and/or innocents.
Landmines don't care who they kill. And, once they've been planted, all control over who the mines target is left to chance.
Fact: The majority of landmines are not safely removed after their ostensible purpose has been achieved.
Only rarely does the combatant responsible for laying the mines remove them - in most cases that's one buck that's passed onto someone else. And in all cases, the cost of safely removing a mine far outstrips the cost of laying it.
Fact: The US is the only western power that refuses to rule out the future use of anti-personnel landmines and, because of this US stance many third-world nations also refuse to stop using these munitions.
It's widely accepted that the pro-landmine position of the US is hampering worldwide efforts to curb the sale and use of anti-personnel landmines. Basically, lots of countries take the position that "if the US, that bastion of human rights, won't give them up then why should we?"
And, honestly, if your own government won't make that kind of commitment, the kind of commitment that every other NATO member has willingly made, then why should you expect others to do so?
Ask yourself this: How much would the combat effectiveness of the US military, the world's most powerful, most technologically advanced, fighting force be diminished if it didn't use anti-personnel landmines? I think you know the answer
It's all very well for you to say that words often don't mean a thing - thanks for pointing out the obvious - but your clear implication is that the American position on landmines is right. Well, frankly, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Sometimes, to achieve the results you want you have to lead by example. The US could join the majority of the free world and stop using these indiscriminate killing machines. It chooses not to. And as a result, directly and indirectly, thousands of people worldwide suffer, and will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future. Way to go USA.
I find it laughable that you even attempt to raise the issue of gun control here. Well, that's a big can of worms but I doubt that even the most liberal individual would equate the right to bear arms with the right to leave killing devices randomly scattered around.
Lastly, I think it's wrong of you to suggest that blowing up innocent people in bus stops and discotheques is wrong (which of course it is) while neglecting to mention that blowing them up from the comfort of your M1 tank, Apache helicopter or F-16 fighter (as has happened recently in both Palestine [bbc.co.uk] and Afghanistan [bbc.co.uk], courtesy of Israel and the US*) is equally morally reprehensible. There are always two sides to every story and the side with the Stars and Stripes on their banner isn't always right.
(Moderators, before you mod this down as a troll, re-read what I've written. It's on-topic honest, accurate and far more balanced than the parent comment.)
(*These aren't isolated incidents, these are just examples. It's always nice to know that your taxes help to kill innocent men, women and children. It's even nicer to know that when it happens, nobody is ever held accountable.)
Re:Stop trolling, look at the facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Munitions arn't sentient, any munition left laying around after the war has ended is a danger. Thing with land mines is that they tend to be frequently left laying around and are concealed in the first place. Unexploded bombs and shells tend to be either obvious on the surface or burried deeply so that the are not a danger to most people (except construction workers).
Re:Stop trolling, look at the facts (Score:2)
Study the history of the Korean War, and the 50 years of truce (not peace) since, then go to Korea, and look out across the DMZ. North Korean tanks could brush aside the much smaller South Korean and American forces and take Seoul (the capital and largest city) in a few hours, except for land-mines and other obstacles. Remember that it took six months for "the US military, the world's most powerful, most technologically advanced, fighting force" to get it's full strength to Saudi Arabia before Operation Desert Storm could start. Clearing the mines will only hold the attackers up for a few days, but at least that would let us fly half the USAF over there and airlift in more troops.
I do abhor the use of land mines in most military situations, such as short-term defensive positions - the army will move on soon, one way or the other, but the mines stay. But for a permanent defense, mines are a critical part.
Re:Stop trolling, look at the facts (Score:2)
Youre not touching on the previous posters points. He is saying that even if the US decided to ban land mines, there are alot of bad countries out there that wont. Not everybody listens to the US, in fact there are quite a few countries that if the US said,"Ban land mines" They would say "Lets build lots of land mines" I can grant out all your paints about land mines being bad and the previous poster still wins, because hes right, it doesnt matter wether the US bans land mines or not, bad people will still use them, all it will do to us is hamper us from protecting our friends and allies.
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
That long
hate to sound like a republican.... (Score:2, Insightful)
In korea these land mines are in a strip of land separating North and south korea. These mines help protect our soldiers. And no one lives in the DMZ so its not dangerous to civilians. While 30,000 soldiers may sound like a lot, remeber that the korean war was basically a draw because how many koreas/chines got killed they were able to send more.
So before we go signing any treaties lets be clear what we are risking.
Re:look at the other point (Score:4, Interesting)
Current american landmines are short term only.
In the current technology, American landmines are now battery-powered. When the battery goes out, the landmine doesn't work anymore. Meaning, by design, the landmines have a built-in lifespan past which point they don't harm anyone unless a 12-year old digs up an unexploded mines
Yeah, landmines are horrible and kill people. But War is horrible and kills people. Attack the problem, not the solution. Working to ban any method of warfare, such as non-time-limited landmines, which cause horrible scars to the country long after the war is over, is an important and noble cause. However, that does not cover the current american landmine technology.
That being said, a technological advance that could be used to clear out the submerged minefields of the past with 100% accuracy would be something i'd say is worthy of the nobel peace prize. But other threads seem to be saying that doesn't quite describe this laser thing? Pity.
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
Talk about trading one problem for another.
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
What it someone digs them up, replaces the batteries and uses them for their own minefield. Or even simply uses them to make their own weapons. What is the explosive used? More specifically is it an explosive which becomes more unstable and dangerous over time...
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
That makes it safer for the clearing crew that comes by in a few months to collect the mines. It does not make them safe for farmers that hit the mine when they are plowing the field 10 years later. Explosives get unstable as they age - just because there's no electricity to fire the detonator doesn't mean an old mine won't explode when it's bumped.
If you want a really safe mine, make it physically dig itself out of the ground, beep for someone to come pick it up for a few days, then if no one responds explode after one hour of obvious warnings (sirens, flashing lights, a voice countdown in all local languages). But then, it would be so complex it would probably malfunction in some highly dangerous manner...
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
-Sean
Re:look at the other point (Score:2)
007 (Score:2, Interesting)
Just my wacky $0.02
Oh, and keep in mind that my tongue is planted firmly within the warm crevace of my cheek.
Re:007 (Score:3, Informative)
The MICLIC [fas.org] does just that. Fires a rocket that tows behind it 350 feet of C-4 at 5 lbs per foot (line charge). The line charge goes off, and whatever doesn't detonate gets thrown aside.
Even better, the Mongoose, which fires a rocket that tows behind it a net of explosives.
Good in principle (Score:1)
Not really that great against land mines.. (Score:1, Informative)
But for clearing scattered munitions this should be rather effective if it works. I mean, a great deal of casualties suffered by children in post-war countries comes from accidental mishandling of explosive material that is left on the ground. It's by far not an end-all solution, but it's a start.
OMG What a pic! (Score:2)
My favorite is the other part of the image here [sparta.com].
Tatooine . . . they're on tatooine . . (Score:1)
You may fire when ready!
Not as effective as it seems (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not as effective as it seems (Score:2)
But that's the type of minefield that the U.S. is concerned about quickly defeating. An enemy force can use a surface-laid expedient minefield in order to protect their flank during a retreat. U.S. forces train to use the Volcano Mine Dispenser [fas.org] in such a situation. While the MICLIC [fas.org] can quickly clear a lane through such a minefield, a system like this laser makes it possible to quickly and safely clear the majority of the minefield without putting soldiers at risk. There are other devices in development like Mine Flails [dtic.mil] for quickly clearing buried minefields. But even these take a while to clear a large area, and usually require dismounted soldiers with metal detectors sweeping the area locating the mines.
Re:Not as effective as it seems (Score:2)
It's called a MICLIC, stands for Mine Clearing Line Charge. 100 meters of C-4. One problem with it is that it only clears a lane 8 meters wide and 100 meters long. Another problem is that the mines that don't explode just fly off for someone else to detonate later.
trying to be too cute (Score:2)
Once you know of a mine you can mark it and avoid it. As for clearing it, I have to believe that there are any number of ways to clear it without using lasers, and this is where the heat concern is.
Why not use sound waves? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the late-night losers around here can shake my apartment building as they drive by with their oh-so-cool car audio systems, surely a military organization could crank things up to the point that any mine within a mile radius would detonate.
Besides, you could keep the locals entertained (at a distance) with some cool tunes.
Why not just paint a target on your shirt? (Score:2)
Re:Why not just paint a target on your shirt? (Score:2)
Sound isn't going to be an effective trigger for these types of UXO. You're going to have to find it and detonate it the hard way (disposal charge.)
Cheap (Score:1)
about time? (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.airbornelaser.com/
The Real Question... (Score:2)
Millions of dollars wasted on this stupid LASER (Score:4, Interesting)
The army doesn't care about its soldiers, only its budget.
Re:Millions of dollars wasted on this stupid LASER (Score:2)
R&D-wise you are correct, it's cheaper. However, in use I think a laser would be less expensive resources wise because it would divert two or three soldiers, and a humvee. Having a helicopter fly back and forth over a minefield on the other hand would require a flight crew, alot more fuel, and probably people on the ground directing the operation.
Mod this up! (Score:2)
I'm out of points, so someone please mod this up.
The Wattenburg method is a modern variant of the chain roller, an antique minefield clearing vehicle that had long chains attached to a horizontal roll rotating a few feet above the ground in front of the armored vehicle. The ends of the long chains would hit the ground with enough force to trigger their explosion, 10 to 15 meters ahead. So the concept is definitely proven.
If you really want to trigger a surface-laid mine or ammunition from far away, it is much cheaper to just fire at it using a 20-mm cannon [af.mil]. But of course that would be a cheap solution. Way too cheap, probably.
Oooooh! Ahhhhhhh! (Score:2)
Here kittie kittie (Score:5, Funny)
Weeiioow...
Normal military-industrial spin (Score:5, Interesting)
a) cannot penetrate soil
b) is judged useless for civilian mine clearing
c) is presumably 1,000,000 less efficient than a tank mounted flail
So. Perhaps what we're looking at is the normal machinery of death industry dressing up some weapons R&D in a quasi-humanitarian guise? How much more likely that there are 101 offensive uses of this device to each defensive use?
Re:Normal military-industrial spin (Score:2)
With tank mounted plows, rakes, and rollers each can only hit mines so many times before they are considered inneffective. How many mines can a flail destroy before it's inneffective? I'm certain that a laser fired from a distance is much more effective in this regard.
Of COURSE we'll blow things up with light (Score:3, Funny)
Word is, it's more accurate than Nostradamus' works.
White Elephants! (Score:4, Insightful)
(incidentally, a "White Elepehant" is an expensive, useless project.)
Why detonate a land mine with another explosive when you can use a laser! Lasers work nearly as well, and are merely many hundreds of times more expensive!
From the article: the operator will then switch on the main beam which will either explode or evaporate the explosives
Quick physics lesson. The explosive force of a conventional explosive is provided by the change-of-state to a gas. Air has a density of roughly 1 kg/cubic m. Most solids and liquids have a density of 1g/cubic cm, or 1000 kg/cubic m. So, when you vaporise something, you get a lump of gas which is compressed roughly 1000-fold.
The upshot? Vaporising the explosive = setting the explosive off! There is no way prevent landmines from detonating by vaporising them; they won't turn into harmless little poofs, they'll fucking explode. Unless they propose that this laser vaporises the landmine slowly/gently - which is patently absurd. So, you might as well set them off with a grenade.
Somebody with friends in the defense establishment has developed yet another practical (which does not mean useful or advisable, and certainly doesn't mean cost-effective) laser system, and they're trying to find some excuse to sell it.
This thing looks like the Crusader look like a good use of taxpayer money.
Re:White Elephants! (Score:2)
only if you vapourize it very very fast. if it takes a while, say 100ms, then all you get is a brief local breeze. and probably a cloud of noxious gas.
Re:White Elephants! (Score:2, Informative)
How do I know this? I was an engineer on the first version (the one mounted on an armored personnel carrier) and helped run the live-munition field testing (disclaimer: I left the company 7 years ago to go to grad school). Trust me, there's a _world_ of difference between setting a mine off with this thing and having one go off for real.
Oh, and the first laser at least was pretty much a standard welding/cutting laser, nothing too special--although it _was_ one of the more powerful versions available. And from reading the article, it sounds like the new version also has that parentage.
As for whether it's worth the money or not, I can't really say. I guess that depends on how much you care about what the mines are sitting on, and what kind of a time limit you're under to get rid of them. If you don't care about where they are, you can blow them up much more easily, but it's messy. If you've got time to spare, send people out to handle each one (risky, though!). But if you've got to clear a place fast, and you can't afford big craters, then there is at least an argument to be made that this is a reasonable way to go.
-M
Re:White Elephants! (Score:2)
So if someone strewed above-ground mines out in the open to slow an armored column, this laser on the lead tank could take out most of the mines (all but those that fell in a hole or behind a bush) very quickly. Maybe it can even do it without stopping. Other methods (gunfire at visible mines, launching a high-explosive "snake" ahead of the tanks, or the flail attachment) require either stopping for a few minutes or driving very slowly. And the mine explosions could leave craters big enough to require even heavy tanks to slow down and maneuver carefully, while with the laser you get "potholes" that tracked vehicles can drive right over and humvees can drive through or dodge.
But it's still a very limited system, in that it can only kill mines where you can see the mine body. It will take out most airdropped mines, but it doesn't clear 100% (some land out of sight), and does anyone but the US have this capability anyhow? It will get some claymores (mines placed above ground to fire sideways), but for obvious reasons these are usually hidden as much as possible. It does nothing at all for buried mines, since the explosive part is over six inches underground. (Lasing the trigger pan won't do any good, even if you know where it is.) And in any case, the main danger with buried mines is in FINDING them - if you can find it without setting it off, you can evacuate the area and set it off safely with a small charge and a long fuse, although you might not be popular with the natives if their house was too close to the mine...
So for most quick-and-dirty military mine-clearing, you are back to the methods that will detonate any buried mines that happen to lay in a particular lane - this used to done with flails pushed ahead of a tank (at some risk to the tank), now the main US method is to launch an explosive snake ahead of the tank, and then there is the Wattenberg proposal (the picture looks like a helicopter towing a harrow - like a big rake). All of these are "messy" techniques that explode the mines at full force, but they work fairly fast and you don't give the other side's snipers much of a target. And I think they are cheaper and less likely to break down than a laser.
These systems and the laser system just clear safe lanes for tanks or troops to pass through the minefield. If you want to make the ground safe for civilians to move back in, or for farming, someone's got to go over every square foot of ground with a good detector. (Even airdropped surface mines may sometimes go down a rabbit hole - and if you want to ensure no kid ever finds a claymore hidden in the bushes, you've got to clamber through the bushes yourself.) There are even ceramic mine casings now, so the traditional metal detector might miss something - maybe you need multi-channel detectors, like metal detection, sonar, and radar? And the guy walking around with this detector is in danger of being blown up if he steps wrong... It's a slow and ugly job even when no one is shooting at you.
I don't get it. (Score:2)
I wonder what other reasons there are for wanting a high-intensity laser mounted on a HMMWV?
I'm NOT carrying grenades anymore.... (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
My grandmother did that for a living at one point. She worked at a photo studio. Photo labs have been using light to blow stuff up for a long time now.
Nautilus Laser (Score:2)
Israel and the US have been jointly developing the Nautilus [cnn.com] THEL (Tactical High Energy Laser) anti-missle system for some time now. It's been sucessfully tested many times.
This has to be a Monster Garage project! (Score:2)
Destroying Mines is easy, Detecting them is Hard (Score:2)
The problem with non-surface mines is that they hard very hard to detect. Modern mines have very little if any metal content. Battlefields usually are riddled with shrapnel/shell casings etc which make metal detecters useless even if the mine had metal.
The Canadian Defence Research Establishment(DRES) [dres.dnd.ca] in Sulfield Alberta is a world leader in mine detection technologies. Their latest invention is the Improved Landmine DetectorProject (ILDP) [dres.dnd.ca]. The ILDP system consists of a teleoperated vehicle carrying three scanning sensors which operate while the system is in motion; a metal detector array (MMD) based on electromagnetic induction (EMI), an infrared imager (IR), ground penetrating radar (GPR), and a confirmatory sensor which requires the system to be stationary and near a target of interest, consisting of a thermal neutron analysis (TNA) detector. Each of the sensors provides information concerning the presence (or absence) of physical properties which accompany the presence of landmines. For example, IR provides a measure of thermal anomalies, EMI reports anomalies in electrical conductivity, GPR detects anomalies in dielectric and other electromagnetic properties, and the TNA provides a measure of nitrogen content.
One the mine is identified and marked the vehicle can move on and let the lifting or destruction of the mine to the engineers.
The US should rethink its use of cluster munitions. A 30% dud rate is not very efficient. Unless they can develop a self destruct timer(which should not be that hard) these mines are going to do more harm to the civilian populations than to the bad guys. Canada first proposed the banning of anti-personnel mines and the treaty is commonly refered to as the Ottawa treaty. They also set up the Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies [ccmat.gc.ca] which is coordinating research into new technologies from around the world.
Instead of spending millions on lasers with limited use, the US should recognize that anti pers mines have a limited tactical role and the human cost in civilian casualties is too great to justify their use. They should be working with Canada to ban anti pers mines and stop their production.
Re:americans finally see the light (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that's a really unfair statement, especially when you consider the fact that it isn't true. Any country will plant land mines when they find it necessary and lots of countries have been trying to find a way to get rid of them when they're past their use.
If you as a canadian are going to take the high road in this matter you should be criticizing your own country for not making innovations in land mine removal technology. Instead you're sitting there and smugly taking a swipe at the US.
You can't sit as a spectator for this sort of thing and dish out moral judgements and expect to be taken seriously.... but then again you're Canadian so I guess you really shouldn't expect to be taken seriously
Re:americans finally see the light (Score:5, Informative)
The countries profiled in this chapter are the 10 with the highest number of landmine casualties. (Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Iraq [Kurdistan], Mozambique, Somalia, and Sudan(footnote 3) as well as two others (Namibia and Nicaragua), which illustrate the global nature of the landmine contagion
The US is neither a huge producer of landmines nor is it a big user of landmines [icbl.org]. Its controversy has stemmed from (as mentioned in the article) refusal to sign international landmine bans.
-Sean
Elitist Foreigner (Score:2)
Re:americans finally see the light (Score:2)
I was rather sceptical of that statement so I did a very extensive google search. Tons of pages on landmines in each country, but I can't find a single damn refference to landmines used by country.
Can you (or anyone) post a refference to support or refute that statement?
-
Re:The Mulewrights (Score:2)
Re:They've already had a minesweaper episode (Score:2)
Re:Nope (Score:2)
Re:Ironic... (Score:2)
The US position has been that we don't want to have to give up the flexibility mining gives us - to defend an area that you could mine requires personnel in depth, meaning a bigger frontline army and support personnel. I'm sure you'd want us to unilaterally disarm ALL of our nuclear weapons, but that aint gonna happen either.